A woman with mental age of 9 forced to have abortion

[Gingerkittykat]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woman-abortion-court-of-protection-ruling-mentally-ill-a8970121.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0LrwkWGx-4dJtABJSuHLlzyLs7IArhgM_CQVisVjx4Asf3YoCeW4aKk1Y#Echobox=1561203238

I understand that this woman will not be able to care for a baby but cannot believe forcing her to have an abortion under any circumstances is appropriate, especially since she is already 22 weeks pregnant.

I am 100% pro choice, but this woman is having her choice taken away from her.

, I mean, why is intercourse so normalized in society, when the consequences for women are so awful

Do you think that if there was no “society“ that sex wouldn’t happen?

In my profession I deal with vulnerable clients, including the COP.

I'm seeing a lot of outrage from the little information given but I do know this decision would not have been taken lightly. First and foremost with "capacity" it must be assume that person has capacity and it has to be proven otherwise through stringent processes.

I'm seeing a lot of "she wants the child" etc but if incapacity has been established then that is not the case.

COP is acting in the best interests of this woman. If after going through all processes and all the information is in front of that judge, and not us, and that decision has been made, I think the right decision has been made.

However, who is responsible for this tragic mess and how it got to 22 weeks so this poor woman has to go through this, with lack of mental capacity, doesn't bear thinking about.

I'm watching When They See Us. If you want to say a court system always gets it right, I have a bridge I would like to sell. Like I said this, in my opinion, creates a precedent that can be manipulated for the purpose of eugenics.

Why does the grandmother matter? Because it's her daughter and grandchild we are talking about.

So if, say, the daughter were capable of taking a decision and wanted to have an abortion, the grandmother's wishes should take precedence? It only has to be stated for the absurdity of this view to become apparent.

A 22 week foetus is EXTREMELY unlikely to be viable outside the womb. I won't say absolutely impossible but there's a 6% chance of survival.

Not that that is the key issue here.

My opinion is indeed that abortion is medical care. And if this woman needs medical care including termination of pregnancy, then thank goodness she's getting it.

Doesn't anyone else think though that abortion at 22 weeks is a pretty extreme decision?

Extreme? No. Often more of a complicated decision for those making it? Yes.

Well I cant understand why carrying the pregnancy to term and the baby being adopted would be worse.

Why would that be better than a surgical abortion under sedation?

That poor woman will know her baby has been killed. And however uncertain her understanding she will think of it as a baby rather than a fetus.

How do you know this? And why do you think it is better she is forced to adopt that baby out to someone instead (or leave her own home)?

She could have an open adoption. Or if her thoughts and feelings on the matter are so insignificant, and it's ok to forcibly put her through extreme surgery and put a very developed and, to the best of her ability, wanted foetus to death, why are you bothered whether she's upset about adoption?

Some care the NHS has offered her, allowing a man to get her pregnant and now forcing her to have an abortion.

Her pregnancy is nothing to do with the NHS Trust, Erythronium. Why do you assume the adult in question was in their care at the relevant time?

TemporaryPermanent

Exactly. And if it is in that 6% the risks of lifelong health complications are significant.

The idea that potential viability should be a consideration here is in my view a red herring argument.

@GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit lot of assumptions there!

I agree that there's a pinch of eugenics in this.

Well I cant understand why carrying the pregnancy to term and the baby being adopted would be worse.

You can't see why having something you want and being taken away can be worse?

Knowing you had a baby,maybe even held it,breastfed and it's now somewhere in the world but you can't see it or care for it or be with it?

Having a baby and your mother taking it in while you having to move out of your home isn't?

Or even worse waking after birth to nothing.

Pregnancy and birth come with risks. Physical and mental.. tears,prolapses,complications,irreversible damage, even death..PTSD,PND etc.

Vulnerable adult women who lack capacity to look after a child should
A. Be protected from possible sexual abuse
B. Be on reliable long term contraception

There is an ethical issue around contraception but surely it is most important to ensure the least harm is caused. If a woman cannot look after a child it is cruel to everyone to allow her to become pregnant.

@PouncerDarling I think you are right

@FeministCat by 30 weeks outcome for premies are great. Even well before that outcomes are excellent if the birth is planned so that steroids are given 48 hours before hand to aid lung development.

Surgery comes with risk regardless. I don't think a late term forced abortion is without psychological trauma either.

Those who say this is eugenics, are you prepared to adopt a child with potentially major health issues whose birth mother couldn't look after him/her?

She could have an open adoption.

I am involved in open adoptions. They don’t guarantee access to the birth parents because the adoptive parents are ultimately final decision makers. It just means records aren’t closed.

And it has already been said she has a mood disorder. You want to force prospective adoptive parents to manage that as well?

And nice try turning argument on me. I am not myself bothered because it is a moot point: she is getting an abortion. But I am asking why people like you who think she would be traumatized by abortion think it is better she is traumatized by forced adoption. Is it because there is a baby at the end of it and that is all this really is about?

So what's the alternative to adopting babies with potential major health issues? We forcibly have them aborted before they are born?

It's nothing to do with the "stock" of the family.

All I can say is I'm glad I'm not the judge. I would've agonised over each option and regardless of what I chose I'd spend ages worrying it was the wrong decision.

@YourSarcasmIsDripping

A dead baby is still taken away? Why is this so hard to grasp?
I'd say that is more traumatic than the physical pain of birth. Isn't it better to have an open adoption, as somebody previously said? Maybe someone nearby or another family member(not the grandma) so she can still have contact but she's not raising it herself.

Forcing her to have a termination, which as much as possible to her understanding, she does not want, because she won't be a good mother is barbaric.

That isn't why the termination is happening. It's because there is no outcome where she can have the baby and keep it, which means that, if she has the baby, either she has to leave her home, or she has to give the baby up for adoption - both of which would be considerably more distressing.

She could have an open adoption. Or if her thoughts and feelings on the matter are so insignificant, and it's ok to forcibly put her through extreme surgery and put a very developed and, to the best of her ability, wanted foetus to death, why are you bothered whether she's upset about adoption?

She has no understanding of this baby as a foetus. She has no understanding of labour, feeding, how she will be physically after a normal birth or a Caesarian. Essentially, she seems to want the baby in the same way she wants a doll, and unfortunately if the baby is born she can't have it.

People who know much more about the situation and, in particular, about this girl, than we do have decided that this is the least worst option for her. How do you claim to know better, PouncerDarling?

but would any one of you actually go ahead and personally kill a baby of that development just because its family weren't of good stock?

No-one is killing this baby because its family weren't of 'good stock'.

Poster after poster has explained that the Court of Protection heard the case on behalf of the pregnant young women. The case was about HER best interests. Not the baby's, not the grandmother's, not the NHS's and not society's.

Eugenics has nothing to do with this at all.

No, this doesn't sit confortably with me.